A Tasting of Australian Wines
WINETASTER ON 02/05/19 WITH 8 JUDGES AND 7 WINES BASED ON RANKS, IDENT=N Copyright (c) 1995-2019 Richard E. Quandt, V. 1.65
FLIGHT 1: Number of Judges = 8 Number of Wines = 7
Identification of the Wine: The judges' overall ranking:
Wine A is Mount Mary 2014 ........ 5th place Wine B is Two Hands Shi 2014 ........ 4th place Wine C is Clonakilla Shi/Vio 2015 ........ 1st place Wine D is Wendouree Cab/Malb 2014 ........ 7th place Wine E is Lakes Folly Cab 2014 ........ 3rd place Wine F is Jacob's Creek Shi NV ........ 2nd place Wine G is Cullen Cab/Merl 2016 ........ 6th place
The Judges's Rankings
Judge Wine -> A B C D E F G Mike 7. 5. 4. 3. 1. 2. 6. Ed 3. 2. 1. 6. 7. 5. 4. Frank 4. 3. 2. 5. 7. 1. 6. Bob 4. 6. 7. 5. 3. 1. 2. Angus 5. 3. 1. 6. 2. 4. 7. Orley 4. 5. 2. 7. 3. 1. 6. Zaki 7. 6. 1. 5. 3. 4. 2. Dick 4. 2. 1. 5. 3. 6. 7.
Table of Votes Against Wine -> A B C D E F G
Group Ranking -> 5 4 1 7 3 2 6 Votes Against -> 38 32 19 42 29 24 40
( 8 is the best possible, 56 is the worst)
Here is a measure of the correlation in the preferences of the judges which ranges between 1.0 (perfect correlation) and 0.0 (no correlation):
W = 0.2467
The probability that random chance could be responsible for this correlation is quite small, 0.0657. Most analysts would say that unless this probability is less than 0.1, the judges' preferences are not strongly related. We now analyze how each taster's preferences are correlated with the group preference. A correlation of 1.0 means that the taster's preferences are a perfect predictor of the group's preferences. A 0.0 means no correlation, while a -1.0 means that the taster has the reverse ranking of the group. This is measured by the correlation R.
Correlation Between the Ranks of Each Person With the Average Ranking of Others
Name of Person Correlation R Orley 0.9009 Angus 0.8289 Dick 0.3424 Frank 0.3243 Ed 0.2883 Zaki 0.2703 Mike 0.2500 Bob -0.2703
The wines were preferred by the judges in the following order. When the preferences of the judges are strong enough to permit meaningful differentiation among the wines, they are separated by -------------------- and are judged to be significantly different.
1. ........ 1st place Wine C is Clonakilla Shi/Vio 2015 --------------------------------------------------- 2. ........ 2nd place Wine F is Jacob's Creek Shi NV 3. ........ 3rd place Wine E is Lakes Folly Cab 2014 4. ........ 4th place Wine B is Two Hands Shi 2014 5. ........ 5th place Wine A is Mount Mary 2014 6. ........ 6th place Wine G is Cullen Cab/Merl 2016 --------------------------------------------------- 7. ........ 7th place Wine D is Wendouree Cab/Malb 2014 We now test whether the ranksums AS A WHOLE provide a significant ordering. The Friedman Chi-square value is 11.8393. The probability that this could happen by chance is 0.0657 We now undertake a more detailed examination of the pair-wise rank correla- tions that exist between pairs of judges. First, we present a table in which you can find the correlation for any pair of judges, by finding one of the names in the left hand margin and the other name on top of a column. A second table arranges these correlations in descending order and marks which is significantly positive significantly negative, or not significant. This may allow you to find clusters of judges whose rankings were particularly similar or particularly dissimilar. Pairwise Rank Correlations Correlations must exceed in absolute value 0.79 for significance at the 0.05 level and must exceed 0.71 for significance at the 0.1 level Mike Ed Frank Mike 1.000 -0.643 -0.036 Ed -0.643 1.000 0.571 Frank -0.036 0.571 1.000 Bob 0.214 -0.607 -0.179 Angus 0.429 0.286 0.321 Orley 0.393 0.143 0.571 Zaki 0.321 0.036 -0.071 Dick 0.071 0.500 0.214 Bob Angus Orley Mike 0.214 0.429 0.393 Ed -0.607 0.286 0.143 Frank -0.179 0.321 0.571 Bob 1.000 -0.464 0.179 Angus -0.464 1.000 0.679 Orley 0.179 0.679 1.000 Zaki 0.036 0.286 0.286 Dick -0.821 0.857 0.286 Zaki Dick Mike 0.321 0.071 Ed 0.036 0.500 Frank -0.071 0.214 Bob 0.036 -0.821 Angus 0.286 0.857 Orley 0.286 0.286 Zaki 1.000 0.036 Dick 0.036 1.000 Pairwise correlations in descending order 0.857 Angus and Dick Significantly positive 0.679 Angus and Orley Not significant 0.571 Frank and Orley Not significant 0.571 Ed and Frank Not significant 0.500 Ed and Dick Not significant 0.429 Mike and Angus Not significant 0.393 Mike and Orley Not significant 0.321 Mike and Zaki Not significant 0.321 Frank and Angus Not significant 0.286 Ed and Angus Not significant 0.286 Angus and Zaki Not significant 0.286 Orley and Zaki Not significant 0.286 Orley and Dick Not significant 0.214 Frank and Dick Not significant 0.214 Mike and Bob Not significant 0.179 Bob and Orley Not significant 0.143 Ed and Orley Not significant 0.071 Mike and Dick Not significant 0.036 Ed and Zaki Not significant 0.036 Zaki and Dick Not significant 0.036 Bob and Zaki Not significant -0.036 Mike and Frank Not significant -0.071 Frank and Zaki Not significant -0.179 Frank and Bob Not significant -0.464 Bob and Angus Not significant -0.607 Ed and Bob Not significant -0.643 Mike and Ed Not significant -0.821 Bob and Dick Significantly negative
COMMENT: All these wines, to the surprise of some, are very elegant. These are mostly limited release, small-batch wines. It is clear that these are very young wines that will improve with age. Our host obtained these very dsifficult to get wines through the good graces of the Fox family of Melbourne, Australia who are well known for their connection with vineyards and fine wine. While all of these wines are young, they are universally approachable. The alcohol in these wines is quite restrained, between 12.5% and 14%. Our host intended that the 1975 Grange Hermitage be included in the tasting, but the bottle failed to survive intact. We note that the group exhibited a most unusual degree of agreement, with one wine being significantly liked, and one significantly disliked.
Return to previous page